What's new

JF-17 Nightmare For The Enemy Pilots

Its a good choice regardless, 5 blocks are envisioned over its life cycle with the plane adding more tricks as it matures

Sure it was envisioned as a fighter with high availability and reduced cost but it was always meant to take on the best

Between adding the necessary technological improvements and ever growing array of weapon's to developing the strategies to taking on the bigger planes

The JF17 was never meant to be a "support" fighter

I repeat we have taken on

Chinese flankers, J10s
Saudi F15s
Turkish F16s
ONLY in the last few months

We train our pilots hard against top class planes to work out the strategies of how we are going to defeat those planes


Underestimating the JF17 is probably its greatest strength
History is full of great army who underestimated a determined enemy in many a arena.

Icc2017 baap kon hai

I pray the Indian continue with their confidence. They came to drink tea at Lahore gymkhana and look what happened. Indian hav3 a bad habit of talking a lot. Womens trait

and,
3 Tejas = 1 jf17[/QUOTE
No, technically. HAL Tejas have upper hand. Jf 17 Inducted well before HAL Tejas and that is advantage of I say and also cost comparison.



Do need to compare with HAL Tejas and jf 17 here. There are multiple threads about both aircraft's.

Yes indeed. When the tejas is on a truck it's the most dangerous. We in Pakistan send pigeons to spy on it.
 
Last edited:
. .
I think that the IAF (and same Indian PDF members) are comiting the same mistake of the US at Vietnam (I am refering to Air War). Back then in theory, the F4 Phantom with many AAMs were to be the end of the gun armed MiGs. The result was wat History told us, try to learn from past mistakes.
Thanks
 
. .
Stick to the topic no South Asian drama needed here ;)

Present your logic and arguments with respect
 
.
JF-17 thunder Big shield against US sanctions, off course big threat for flying coffins pilots.
Pakistan Zindabad
 
.
No, technically. HAL Tejas have upper hand. Jf 17 Inducted well before HAL Tejas and that is advantage of I say and also cost comparison.



Do need to compare with HAL Tejas and jf 17 here. There are multiple threads about both aircraft's.


By this logic countries shud be burying booing 777 dream liner... it may carry 3000 bvrs
 
. . .
Pakistan has every reason to be proud of the JF-17 as it is the only Muslim nation that is manufacturing it's own 4th generation fighter aircraft.:enjoy:

However we need to be realistic here. The JF-17 is very small and so cannot hold a large radar(reduced range), cannot carry many BVR missiles(BVR missiles need to be rippled fired to increase successful hit) and also has a low top speed(higher speed allows the missile to travel further and so increases effective maximum range).

There is only so much that PAF pilots can get out of the JF-17.
Sorry but your understanding of fighter aircrafts is very poor ... While light weight aircrafts are limited by range payload and hard points but they can be as effective as heavy fighters ... Light weight fighters are ideal for quick turn around time ... For example grippen was always designed to take on against heavy soviet fighters i.e. mig and sukhois ... Similarly thunder was always envisioned to take on mkis as mki was already signed when Pakistan started thunder ... Your point is useless that thunder is meant to replace second tier fighter ... Had that been the caae thunder would have not upgraded with AESA radar ...

Thunder small size makes him difficult to detect in radar and there are high chances thay thunder will detect mki earlier as mki has huge rcs and easily detectable ... Furthermore both of bvr are in similar category ...

Your plea that mki can carry 11 bvr is useless as pilots never fire all bvr ... Generally only one missile is fired at a time on single fighter and at max two and hence both mki and thunder are even ...

Furthermore speed does not mater in air combat its the thrust and acceleration which is good for thunder ... F35 speed is also same as of thunder ... An aircraft rarely flies at top speed .. they fly at top speed only in 2 cases only .. to reach a point to intercept or to escape from a scene ...

Either your knowledge of fighter aircrafts is limited or you are biased due to your hatred towards Pakistan ... You have failed to give any single point on performance of thunder but rather your argument is based on irrelvant factors such as cost, size and speed ...
 
.
Sorry but your understanding of fighter aircrafts is very poor ... While light weight aircrafts are limited by range payload and hard points but they can be as effective as heavy fighters ... Light weight fighters are ideal for quick turn around time ... For example grippen was always designed to take on against heavy soviet fighters i.e. mig and sukhois ... Similarly thunder was always envisioned to take on mkis as mki was already signed when Pakistan started thunder ... Your point is useless that thunder is meant to replace second tier fighter ... Had that been the caae thunder would have not upgraded with AESA radar ...

Thunder small size makes him difficult to detect in radar and there are high chances thay thunder will detect mki earlier as mki has huge rcs and easily detectable ... Furthermore both of bvr are in similar category ...

Your plea that mki can carry 11 bvr is useless as pilots never fire all bvr ... Generally only one missile is fired at a time on single fighter and at max two and hence both mki and thunder are even ...

Furthermore speed does not mater in air combat its the thrust and acceleration which is good for thunder ... F35 speed is also same as of thunder ... An aircraft rarely flies at top speed .. they fly at top speed only in 2 cases only .. to reach a point to intercept or to escape from a scene ...

Either your knowledge of fighter aircrafts is limited or you are biased due to your hatred towards Pakistan ... You have failed to give any single point on performance of thunder but rather your argument is based on irrelvant factors such as cost, size and speed ...

OK.

You seem to think that BVR missiles have a high hit rate and do not understand physics.
 
.
.
OK.

You seem to think that BVR missiles have a high hit rate and do not understand physics.
Then same goes for mki ... Even in WVR small planes have greater acceleration and more nimble due to less drag ... TWR of thunder is better than mki ... Smaller planes are always at advantage in WVR thats the reason f16 mostly comes at the top against other fighters ...
 
.
I hate to have to say this but it needs to be said...

Let us imagine 2 JF-17s against 2 SU-30MKIs head on, with AWACs coverage and so both are seen by the other side well outside the maximum range of their BVR AAMs.

JF-17 has top speed of Mach 1.6 and service ceiling of 17,000m
Su-30MKI has top speed of Mach 2 and also a service ceiling of 17,000m
Just the higher top speed of the Su-30MKI will allow it to release it's BVR AAMs at greater range as they would have greater kinetic energy when released.

JF-17 can carry 4 SD-10s
SU-30MKI can carry 10 R-77s.
SU-30MKI can fire many more R-77s whereas the JF-17 will run out of BVR AAMs much quicker in a BVR shoot-out.

Conclusion: SU-30MKIs will eat JF-17s for breakfast, lunch and dinner assuming the radar, EW and missiles are of similar standard.

The MKI is not half as agile as it looks in display videos once it s carrying all the fuel and ammunition
while its RCS will attract predators from all over

I think that the IAF (and same Indian PDF members) are comiting the same mistake of the US at Vietnam (I am refering to Air War). Back then in theory, the F4 Phantom with many AAMs were to be the end of the gun armed MiGs. The result was wat History told us, try to learn from past mistakes.
Thanks

See had you not done that,
they would have lit candles, and went to sleep assured that first plastic surgery was done thousands of years ago.
Now you have destroyed their world view.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom